Re: FW: Index usage

From: "gnari" <gnari(at)simnet(dot)is>
To: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" <edwin(at)bluebamboo(dot)ph>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FW: Index usage
Date: 2004-12-01 08:24:59
Message-ID: 004901c4d77f$3f31c020$0100000a@wp2000
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

From: "BBI Edwin Punzalan" <edwin(at)bluebamboo(dot)ph>

> Thanks but whatever it does, it didn't work. :

> Do you think upgrading will fix this problem?

are you sure there is a problem here to solve ?

> Seq Scan on chatlogs (cost=0.00..27252.86 rows=271882 width=212) (actual
> time=12.24..13419.36 rows=257137 loops=1)

you see that the actual rowcount matches the estimate,
so the planner is not being misled by wrong statistics.
you realize that an indexscan is not allways faster than
sequential scan unless the number of rows are a small
percentage of the total number of rows

did you try to add a 'order by date' clause to your query ?

gnari

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rodrigo Carvalhaes 2004-12-01 11:16:58 pg_restore taking 4 hours!
Previous Message Andrew McMillan 2004-12-01 08:23:30 Re: Using "LIMIT" is much faster even though, searching